Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras by Nikon
|
List Price: Our Price: $610.00 You Save: $179.00 (23%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Digital Camera See more digital camera details and other models |
|---|
Digital camera reviews of Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras
Digital camera Review: An Excellent All-Around Lens
Summary: 4 Stars
I purchased a Nikon D200 in 2007 but held off buying a zoom lens to use as my-always-on-the-camera lens because there were no reasonable cost Nikon zoom DR lens that covered 16 mm (equivlent of 24 mm in 35 MM format). I recently read about the availability of this zoom lens that starts at 16mm with VR (vibration reduction) capability and decided to give it a try. I have not been disappointed. Images are sharp and color is good across the whole zoom range for pics on automatic setting. Have not had time to play with it at full aperture and manual settings, yet, but will get to that in the future. Filter size is large (67mm), but I guess they had to put the new auto focus and VR motors somewhere.
My only complaint to date is that Nikon has reversed the position of the zoom and focusing rings on the lens barrel. This will take some getting used.
Digital camera Review: Best all-around DX lens (and almost perfect)
Summary: 5 Stars
I bought this lens after owning the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens for about seven months. This lens is much sharper, and is a great performer wide-open. Some functionality is lost compared to the 18-200, but many of the images I took with that lens were much softer, and the wide-open performance was pretty bad. It could have been a bad sample. In any event, I echo the comments of many others here - this lens is a winner. I think it's either a love it or hate it compared to the 18-200 (Ken Rockwell's comparison of these two lens was quite subjective as he gave the 18-200 glowing reviews compared to the 16-85, even after admitting to the 16-85 having better IQ). Also, the 18-200 has significant lens creep (which is unacceptable); this 16-85 seems to be constructed the same way (albeit slightly smaller) but has no creep. I prefer to couple this lens with my Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras for traveling and get superior image quality over the 18-200.
My only beef with this lens is that it's rather slow. If this was a constant f/4 lens, I think it would have better Nikon product line-up positioning and would make the perfect DX lens (even if this makes the lens just a tad larger and a little more expensive).
This is a purchase you will definitely be happy with if you are after a very good lens with decent coverage that's very sharp across its focal length and aperture range. It will not disappoint!
Digital camera Review: Best walkaround Nikon lens for me
Summary: 5 Stars
I bought this to supplement/replace an 18-200 VR Nikon lens that I have used very extensively, but have often wanted a sharper, more contrasty walkaround lens. I use them primarily on a D300. I shoot around 30,000 images a year at this point.
The 16-85 is sharper than the 18-200. 16mm is significantly wider angle than 18mm, and I have found the extra wide angle more important than the zoom range I lost in going from the 18-200. The 16-85 is also significantly smaller and lighter than the 18-200, and the lens extension is much tighter, as well there is no zoom creep. My 18-200 creeps to full zoom if you point it down even 45 degrees. I don't think the 16-85 will develop that trait. There is significantly less image distortion at the wide end with the 16-85. BTW, my 18-200 is an early one, made in Japan, so likely a better than average sample. I believe all 16-85 lenses are made in Taiwan.
The one downside is simply that it's a slow lens. But, no slower than the 18-200. The VR on my sample is not really any better than that of the 18-200, but it's not worse either. I can get sharp images down to 1/8 to 1/15, depending on the zoom, with probably a 50% hit rate to be acceptably sharp. When shooting that slow, I just take 2 or 3 images at a time and one of them is usually sharp. Combined with the high ISO capability of the D300, I can live with the speed of this lens for my shooting. I do use the D300 battery grip, so have a bit of weight which helps with steadiness, too. I find the ability to shoot landscape or portrait with the grip far outweighs it's bulk. I never take it off the camera when handholding.
I do notice at the wide end when handheld with VR the images have an edgy character when zoomed to 100% that I take to be a characteristic added by VR. It could also be that it's approaching the resolution limit of the sensor and I'm expecting more from each pixel than can be provided at 16mm by a D300 12 MP sensor. I never noticed this with the 18-200. Neither do I notice it on my 12-24 at that focal length. I don't see it zoomed to anything less than 100%, and I'm far more pleased with having the 16mm shots than I'm bothered by this characteristic.
I was hoping for absolute sharpness, in the same vein as my 70-200 VR, and this lens is close, but not quite as sharp. But it's noticeably sharper than the 18-200, most especially at 85mm, and when looking past the center of the frame. At f8 and above, the center of the images between the 16-85 and 18-200 are fully the same sharpness. Past 85mm, the 18-200 becomes less useful due to loss of contrast and sharpness, again making the loss of that zoom range less bothersome.
I also considered the Sigma 17-70, but with no VR, that lens while faster would be much more limited. It's much cheaper, though, and has a pseudo-macro capability, and most are reportedly sharp, so you might consider that lens also. I shoot a lot of low light scenes, mostly street scenes at night. I don't mind some blurred people - it simply lends life to the image. I can easily handhold street scenes at night of lit storefronts etc with sharp images of static objects - all I can ask for.
My alternative was the 24-70. I know I would have been happier with that lens on an absolute basis, in terms of sharpness, build quality, and overall image quality. But the size and lack of VR of the 24-70 would limit my satisfaction and given the zoom range, it would be a much more limited lens. I have achieved close to the level of sharpness, with less weight and cost. Overall, this lens will add more to my photography than the 24-70, and for less than half the cost. When I get a D700, I will also add the 24-70, but not before.
I own other lenses with good to very good Bokeh. The 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 VR, and Tamron 90 2.8 that I have all have very good Bokeh. Neither the 18-200 or 16-85 do. Just to say, it's very helpful to have at least one lens with very good background blur characteristics in your kit for portraits or closeups. The 16-85 is not that lens at most focal lengths.
In short, I'm happy with the purchase, and would purchase again. I will rarely use the 18-200 now that I've purchased this lens.
Digital camera Review: Best-kept secret for DX users
Summary: 5 Stars
I chose the 16-85mm over Nikon's other basic DSLR zooms (18-xx/xxx) primarily due to its wider zoom capability on the short end, and I have been extremely satisfied with my choice. A 2mm difference doesn't seem like much, but it is very nearly equivalent to the difference between 24mm and 28mm lenses on a 35mm-sized camera. That is a very noticeable difference and enough to make the 16-85 a useful wide angle lens. The 16mm setting is great. It gives a perspective that is striking enough to produce interesting images but close enough to normal to avoid looking unnatural. An ultra-wide still has its place, but 16mm (24mm equivalent) is such a useful focal length to have that it puts the 16-85mm in a category, for me, that is one notch above the 18-xx/xxx lenses.
It helps that by most accounts the 16-85mm is optically the best of these lenses. I'm not really equipped to evaluate the lens' technical qualities in great detail, but those who have done so tend to note that this lens addresses most of the minor flaws found among the rest of Nikon's basic DSLR zooms, making it likely the sharpest and least flawed of a good lot. I can confirm that it produces strikingly colorful photos that are exceedingly sharp and mostly free of undesirable effects. Mine does produce some ghosting when shooting photos with the sun actually in the frame, which I often do. I wouldn't fault it too heavily on that basis.
The 16-85's toughest competition is probably the 18-200. I didn't really consider the 200 because Nikon seems to have had to give up just a bit too much in terms of optical quality to get the zoom range. Still, many buyers will compare the two, as they are similar in cost and quality and perform similar functions for most users. I'm actually a bit surprised how infrequently I need to go beyond 85mm on a DSLR. 85mm is a good, useful telephoto range that provides a fair measure of distance compression and allows me to get the perspective I want in the telephoto range for most subjects. The 85-200mm range, for me, is really mostly useful for special conditions photography - shooting distant subjects that I have no way to get closer to. For that type of purpose I don't mind having to switch lenses, and the bonus here is that the 70-300mm VR becomes a reasonably affordable complement to the 16-85mm (2/25/09 note: I have since purchased, used and reviewed a copy of the 70-300 VR zoom and found it to be quite mediocre, although it may have been a below-average sample). That combination, although more expensive, provides usefully greater range at both ends than the 18-200mm without quite the optical compromises the 18-200mm seems to require. Nikon's 28-200mm "G" lens could be another very useful complement to the 16-85mm as it has a reputation for optical excellence, good macro capabilities and is light and fairly inexpensive.
The bottom line is that the 16-85mm is a no-excuses basic lens that serves very well for quite a broad scope of basic photography. I feel confident when I use it that I am getting very close to the best image quality possible. The only thing the lens gives up is speed, and that is surely by necessity. Any combination of fast lenses that would approximate this range you would need to get both Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 at a combined cost of $3k, and would still need to add either a 70-200 or an 85mm prime at the long end. VR makes the lack of speedy apertures acceptable for basic shooting. I love my 16-85.
Other Lenses:
I've had the opportunity to own and use many different Nikon lenses and have posted my impressions of some of them here on Amazon. For those interested, here are short summaries. I have used all these lenses on Nikon DX-sized DSLRs, most recently my current D90. Refer to the full reviews for further detail.
Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AF-D: *** Competent, sharp lens is a good fit as a bargain DX "normal" prime. Slow f/2.8 max aperture poor. Very inexpensive in used market.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM: *** Poor focusing consistency and below average large-aperture acuity combine for disappointing real-world performance. Fast max aperture, very capable if used with appropriate care.
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-G: ****1/2 Terrific lens at a bargain price. Not without flaws, but excellent in all important respects. A pleasure to use.
Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D: **** Sharp, especially at large apertures, moderate contrast. Classic "normal" lens for DX but consider new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S instead.
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D: *** My sample was unacceptably poor at large apertures. Perhaps a below-average sample. Focal length not ideally suited to DX.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D ****1/2 Very good short-to-moderate telephoto on DX. Acceptable at large apertures, very sharp stopped-down, moderate contrast. Potentially excellent for portrait use.
Nikon 28-200mm AF-G *** Of two samples, one was excellent and one poor, so watch for sample variations. Very good contrast. Not ideal hand-held due to lack of VR. Not ideal for tripod use due to design.
Nikon 55-200mm VR **** Very good lens, very good sharpness and contrast, no fatal flaws. Cheap feel and feature-challenged, but has effective VR. A bargain.
Nikon 70-300mm VR *** My sample had very poor performance above 200mm, good to very good elsewhere. Good contrast, generally very good focus performance. Good sports/action lens. Not good where critical sharpness is desired. Possibly a below-average sample.
Digital camera Review: Can't Go Wrong - Image Quality Excellent
Summary: 5 Stars
I don't need to write a book for this. The lens rocks. Previously I owned some cheaper Nikon lenses and they pale in comparison to this. When you start paying $500+, you start getting results. And that's in sharpness, color, everything.
This lens has been one of the best investments I've made. Do not think twice, get it if this zoom range will fill your needs.